From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ariola v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 31, 2008
53 A.D.3d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 503887.

July 31, 2008.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered September 5, 2007 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Christopher D. Ariola, Malone, appellant pro se.

Before: Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur.


Following a final parole revocation hearing in May 2007, petitioner's parole was revoked and a 24-month delinquent time assessment was imposed based upon his alleged failure to cooperate in a mental health/substance abuse evaluation. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding challenging his detention, contending that he was violated for failing to comply with an "unapproved" condition of his parole and, hence, the violation and his subsequent detention were illegal. Supreme Court, sua sponte, denied the petition based upon petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Habeas corpus relief is inappropriate where, as here, the claimed error could have been addressed upon an administrative appeal ( See People ex rel. De Marta v. Sears, 31 AD3d 918, lv denied 7 NY3d 715; People ex rel. Wethington v Beaver, 306 AD2d 945). The underlying petition was silent as to whether an administrative appeal had been perfected or whether any resulting decision had been rendered and, therefore, Supreme Court properly denied the petition on that basis. Moreover, even if petitioner's purported constitutional claims might otherwise "justify a departure from the general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies" ( People ex rel. Greany v Travis, 269 AD2d 666, 666, lv denied 94 NY2d 765, habeas corpus relief nonetheless is unavailable as such claims, even if meritorious, would not entitle petitioner to immediate release (see id. at 667; See also People ex rel. Wethington v. Beaver, 306 AD2d at 946; People ex rel. Joyce v New York State Div. of Parole, 249 AD2d 638).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Ariola v. Sears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 31, 2008
53 A.D.3d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Ariola v. Sears

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CHRISTOPHER D. ARIOLA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 31, 2008

Citations

53 A.D.3d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 6483
862 N.Y.S.2d 635

Citing Cases

People ex rel. Cook v. Warden, Brooklyn Detention Complex

ed 10 NY3d 707 [2008]; People ex rel. Bratton v. Mellas, 28 AD3d 1207 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 705…

People v. Perez

Accordingly, habeas corpus relief is unavailable ( see People ex rel. Shannon v. Khahaifa, 74 A.D.3d 1867,…